On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:14:19PM -0400, Brian Siano wrote:I think you're missing the point, Jeff.
Maybe.
I'm hearing people say, "We are inconvenienced because it is hard to park. But we don't see much economic benefit to this."
I would like to put this in context. The inconvenience from filming hack means that several days a month parking is tight. Parking being tight means some people (about 135, it seems) will spend a bit of extra time parking and have to walk a few extra blocks. This is inconvenient, but not much worse than that.
But that's not the issue here, Jeff. Obviously, the impact of _Hack's_ location shooting affects us all in different ways. And if that _was_ the issue, we can niggle back and forth about the degree of inconvenience. (I also don't think it helps to trivialize this as a matter of people complaining about inconveniences.) The issue here is whether the neighborhood had been adequately informed and consulted about this impact. What _I'm_ hearing people say is "No, we weren't told about this until the police signs came up on our block." That's not a good indication.
These are very real ways in which money is flowing into our city and our region. Exactly how much flows into UC? I don't know, but is that our primary criterion? Is the inconvenience not worth it if it only improves the lot of some people in Northern Liberties and Point Breeze? Or in Center City?
I have no doubt that money's come into the city because of the production, and it's even likely that money has arrived in our local region. But, as I said before, that is _not_ the issue that was raised.
I am with you all the way when it concerns government action or the actions of large entities who are proposing to alter the built environment of our neighborhood.
But I disagree that every time someone wants to do business or conduct some affair that they should be required to hold community meetings. What would be the threshold of concern? Over a certain dollar amount invested? But invested in what? How would you measure it? Should you need to hold a public meeting to have a block party? You inconvenience neighboring blocks.
I find these points as faulty as your earlier analogy to student parking. We're not talking about a minor business transaction, or every "affair" that occurs. We're talking about a large, logistic operation which demands that dozens of residents make substantial adjustments to their daily lives. (Again, I'm disappointed at seeing this tendency to minimize or dismiss the complaints that have been posted here.)
The odd thing about Jeff's argument is that television and film productions understand that they have this kind of impact on neighborhoods. That's why they usually network with local police, film production offices, and local community groups. In our neighborhood, however, the communications broke down somewhere between the production company and the rest of us. (It's quite a bit like the debacle with McDonalds up on Market Street. McD's tried to work with community leaders, but somehow, the people in the immediate area weren't brought into the discussion. Net result: a _lot_ of argument, coughing, ill will, and court costs.)
I know, a wedding is different, but my point is that I don't think we are thinking through very well this proposed obligation to consult the community. We don't have a right to be consulted on everything.
If I'm following Jeff's arguments correctly, he is saying that a) the city is benefitting, so the neighborhood benefits indirectly, b) people are complaining too much about being "inconvenienced," and c) they have no right to ask for consultation on the matter.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
